1 2025:CGHC:33206 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.61 of 2020 Jitendra Kumar Thakur S/o Late Puranik Thakur, aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No.15, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant/Victim versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kripa Ram Sahu D/o Late Mansha Ram Sahu, aged About 63 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. (Accused) ... Respondents (cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Jitendra Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri RS Puriya, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 16.07.2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.01.2020 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, District Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.40/2019 whereby, the Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.07.18 11:06:04 +0530 2 Respondent/Accused has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 294 and 506-II IPC as also under Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant/Complainant and the Respondent/Accused are neighbors, and a dispute arose between them. On 23.06.2019, the Appellant/Complainant observed that the Respondent/Accused had connected his roof drainage pipe to the bathroom pipe of the Appellant, which caused annoyance to the former. Upon being questioned, the Respondent/Accused allegedly abused the Appellant/Complainant using filthy language, including derogatory remarks referring to his mother, sister, and caste. It is further alleged that the Respondent/Accused picked up a stone to assault the Appellant/Complainant and also issued threats to kill him. A written complaint regarding the incident was lodged by the Appellant/Complainant on 01.07.2019, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Gariyaband (Ex.P-2). After preliminary enquiry, FIR No. 5/19 (Ex.P-3) was registered at Police Station AJAK, Gariyaband. A Crime Details Form (Ex.P-4) was prepared. The caste certificate of the Appellant/Complainant, indicating that he belongs to the Gond community, was seized (Ex.P-5). A spot map was prepared by the Patwari (Ex.P-7), and the statements of witnesses were recorded. 3. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed. During the trial, the Respondent/Accused denied the charges and claimed false implication. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as 3 many as 4 witnesses. In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, he contended that on the date of the incident, it was the Appellant/Complainant who caused injury to him and he had lodged a complaint at the police station on the same day, which was registered under Sections 294, 506, and 323 of the IPC (Ex.D-2). According to him, the present complaint was a counterblast to his earlier report. The defence exhibited nine documents (Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-9) but did not examine any witness. 4. After evaluation of evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the Respondent/Accused as stated above. Hence, this Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Complainant herein. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the facts and evidence of the case in its proper perspective and prays to allow the Appeal. 6. Alternatively, learned State Counsel supports the judgment impugned and has not preferred any Appeal. 7. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties, perused the documents annexed with the Appeal as also gone through the judgment under challenge with due care. 8. In the instant case, undisputedly, the Appellant/Complainant and the Respondent/accused are both neighbors and a dispute arose between them with regard to flowing of rain water accumulated on the roof. The Appellant/Complainant got annoyed as the said water from the roof of the Respondent/Accused has flown down to his side and the Respondent/Accused has also made a complaint against him on the 4 same day i.e. 23.06.2019 to the police (Ex.D-2) and the police has registered a criminal case under Sections 294, 504 and 323 IPC. The Appellant/Complainant categorically admits that for the aforesaid offence, he has been arrested on 30.06.2019 and thereafter on 01.07.2019, the complaint (Ex.P-2) has been lodged by him which shows that he has lodged a delayed complaint for which, no satisfactory explanation has been offered by him, therefore, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that in order to save himself from the earlier complaint/police case registered against him, as a counter blast, the Appellant/Complainant has developed a cooked up story and filed a false complaint (Ex.P-2). 9. It is well established that in order to attract the offence under Section 294 IPC, it is necessary that the prosecution must prove that the offence has taken place in a public place to the annoyance of others. In the matter of N.S. Madhanagopal & Another Vs. K. Lalitha {2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844}, it has been held that mere abusive, humiliating or defamatory words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294 (b) IPC. To prove the offence under Section 294 IPC, mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient, but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others. The test of obscenity under Section 294 (b) IPC is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. 10. In the instant case, the quarrel was with regard to flowing of rain water of the neighbor where some words were uttered by the 5 Respondent/Accused which do not pass the test of obscenity and further, the police has also registered a case as the Appellant/Complainant has also abused the Respondent/Accused at the same time in the aforesaid incident. Furthermore, mere empty threat is not sufficient to attract the offence of criminal intimidation and there was no intentional insult or intimidation on the part of the Respondent/Accused herein to humiliate the Appellant/Complainant only on the ground that he belongs to the SC/ST category. 11. Moreover, it is equally settled that when two views are possible, then the view which is favourable to the accused should be taken. {See: Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731], V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, [(2006) 10 SCC 617]} & Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another vs. State of Uttarakandi reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176. 12. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the case laws cited above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, which is a plausible one therefore, no interference is required to be made with the findings recorded by the said Court. 13. Accordingly, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya